DVDizzy Forum

Bolt never tried to be hand-drawn. The backgrounds were painted, but the characters weren't. Bolt was meant to be a little more cg-looking than Rapunzel.

Yes, I agree it's a little hard to tell how painted-looking Rapunzel looks on the swing, but her dress definately looks like the rest of the painting, it looks painted. From what I can tell, all of Rapunzel, the whole painting, looks just like a painting.

What we do know is they tried to make her look painted like the rest of the image achieved, and from what we can actually see, she looks as painted as the rest of the image. Her hair and dress definately look painted at least.

I don't know the answer to the last question, but I would say this art is special and perhaps reserved for Rapunzel, because Rapunzel is meant to be an arty, classic, fairy tale, much like the original Disney fairy tales.

I do not get why they wanted Bolt to look painterly when I don't see what paintings have much to do with Bolt's story.

While painted beauty has very much to do with the old world of castles and illustrated, painted storybooks, and after all it was based on an old painting. Also, they want this to be like the older fairy tales, so combining hand-drawn animation and paintings, like the original Disney fairy tales, with CGI, makes it like the old ones but still new.

OH! I think they tried to test the painterly look on Bolt before they began Rapunzel...but Rapunzel will take it much further.

I think I've finally the reason that Rapunzel looks more painted. Bolt's BGs look more impressionistic than that of a hand-drawn film.

I see a lot more in Rapunzel's paintings than just soft impressionism. It looks like they used brushes, there are strokes and details. There's a certain texture. There's just much more that makes it look like an actual painting. I mean, it does after all match the Fragonard painting almost exactly. It may be hard to describe what it is that makes it look exactly like a painting, but that's the beauty of it.

You can't tell anything from those small images. And making handpainted-looking things three dimensional has been possible since Deep Canvas. All they had to do was increase the detail in the CGI environments. But seriously, how would a close up CG Rapunzel look in that environment? Pretty damn out of place. There's a reason we see her from a distance on a swing.

And then there's the many flaws in copying a rococo painting. Rococo is beyond hideous and after an entire movie looking like that one's eyes will feel exhausted.

I know my dislike of rococo is a personal thing, but I've never heard anyone say they particularly liked that era.

Basing Bolt on the style of Edward Hopper is a far more interesting choice. His painting are almost like concept art for early Hollywood films. Only much, much better. It's a logical decision that gives you an entire look for the film without much trouble.

I think literally copying one rococo painting and try to turn it into a movie is a fundamentally flawed idea. Might have been interesting for an independant short film. But not a full length Disney feature. Far too complex. But I guess that probaply goes back to Keane's qualities as a character designer/animator. He could take an image of the real Pocahontas and translate it into a fantastic and beautiful design. Designing an entire movie is just not like that. I think Keane bit off more than he could chew. Wich is sadly why he failed.

Well from those pictures some people have judged everything looking great, painterly, and 3-D.

From what I can see, she looks painterly enough on that swing and no one at the animation gatherings like SIGGRAPH complained she didn't match the rest of the painting-looking environment.

And that clip of a close-up of Rapunzel with the squirrel, well, she looks more painterly than most CGI, more than Bolt, and oh, she's in front of a very painterly looking bed - and she doesn't look out of place.

The film probably won't look like just a Fragonard painting, but the kind of style. What Glen Keane liked most was the richness, "like there's butter between the strokes". And of course an old painting done in the times of castles.

Thank you for explaining why Bolt had a painterly look, though. A Hollywood concept art look is fitting for that movie...at least more fitting than just paintings in general.

you know I think in the end, when they continue with Rapunzel to do what they started with on Bolt will result into something Keane tried to do for so long.

It'll always be tough to judge what it was he accomplished. Especially because we're stuck with just a few images and some descriptions. But I do believe his intentions: trying to make Disney's CGI films stand out and give them a handpainted feel, will come through in the end.

Thinking about it again, maybe he didn't fail entirely. He got the ball rolling. And it's important to remember he's a directing animator on the film. I think he will use the patented technology created for Bolt to its full potential.

Well...thank you very, very much for giving this a chance, and not thinking he failed.


I really do hope they can make it look as painterly as the images I have given, and not just like Bolt...I still want to make that petition to have them do what it takes, however long, to get it that way...anyone wanna help?

PatrickvD wrote: The CG hair blowing in the wind looked just like that. CG hair blowing the wind. Nothing Pixar or Dreamworks couldn't whip up. And his other tests probaply didn't cut it. If it really was as mindblowing as it was supposed to be, it would have been used. I do think it partly contributed to Bolt's techniques. I truly believe Keane got the ball rolling on making Disney's CG films look less CG and different from Pixar and Dreamworks. But I do not believe he succeeded in creating a new technology for Rapunzel. If he had, they could have spent time crafting a story and it would have been out on dvd by now.

Have you ever seen the clip? This clip and all the CGI images and other test clip, were not just "tiny images". They were shown at a big screen at SIGGRAPH, and as far as I can remember, everybody became impressed.
It is actually impossible to tell the difference between what is painted and what is a frame from the movie.
I get the impression you are so negative because you just can't or wont see the meaning of the achievements. Those working in the business would have told you otherwise. The fact is that even if Pixar or DreamWorks maybe could have done the same, or maybe not, Glen Keane and his crew were the first ever to do it. At first, they even had to start with a Rapunzel with a very short hair, and then gradually make it longer, because the tools didn't exist back then to make a jump directly to the 50 feet long hair. Bolt would later benefit from the new techniques, and what was developed for Rapunzel and for Bolt as well will be used again in Rapunzel. What you are claiming is that they evolved something new, but then scrapped it after deciding if wasn't "good enough", despite their success at SIGGRAPH and elsewhere. Sorry, but that's rubbish. What was shown from the project's early days were stuff that have never been done before. And I'm not talking about the details and rendering, but also the smooth movements.
Keane aftually hated the rigid stiffness from for instance the DreamWorks animation, so I really doubt DreamWorks could have done the same.

Your personal opinions about the painting style is irrelevant here. Either way, they are of course not going to imitate the style in eveyr single way.

The Disney board gave Keane free hands to evolve what was required to make a computer animated feature the way he wanted it to look. It had to be delayed not because the lack of a story, but the lack of technology. After a couple of years, in 2005, the first tests were as mentioend shown at SIGGRAPH. A year after, when Disney bought Pixar and John Lasseter became Keane's new boss, they had to start from scratch again with the story, and in 2008 he was replaced by another director for different reasons (Lasseter was by the way very pleased with the first part of the new storyline). From 2006, when starting all over again, to 2008, that's two years, not seven.

As you maybe remember, Lasseter gave him the chance to do Rapunzel as a handdrawn movie, but he deicded to do it as a CGI thing instead. Why, because he had come so far in evolving the CGI to a new level, that it was too late for him to turn. If he hadn't achieved anything, there is no reason why he wouldn't switch to handdrawn.

Just last year, there was another reminder why this movie couldn't have been made before with the required quality:

"Joe Grant and Keane were talking about Rapunzel, and Grant said they were trying to make that back in the golden age of Disney, but it was a nut they couldn’t crack. They set it aside and were just “waiting for the right day.” Keane said that with Lasseter head of Disney Animation, the animation department at Disney is going through a renaissance and he believes now is the time, now is the “right day” to make this. We’ll see this one Christmas of 2010."

Glen Keane is by the way not only the directing animator, he is also the producer, so he still has some influence. But I still liked to original logo and images a hell of a lot better than the new ones.

And I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you mean with "It's the one fairytale that hasn't been adapted by Disney".

You also claim that all of this has been possible since depp canvas was created. The fact is that they have been building on the technology, but much of what have been done the last years could never have been done in Tarzan, such as the large and open landscapes in Bolt and the way the light is reflected to make it look like a painting.

PatrickvD wrote:After Rapunzel, everyone will have an opinion on wich direction they want to see Disney going in. Disney may claim they want to make both handdrawn and CGI films, but if they bring us two classic fairytales, one handdrawn, the other CGI, they can expect critics to have a strong opinion on both films and wich they prefer. They're asking for it.

That's pure speculations. Maybe one of them will make more money than the other, but each movie stands on its own. How much money The Princess and the Frog makes will probably have some influence on future handdrawn movies from Disney, but I don't believe in some kind of competition between them. And since when did the "expect critics" decide in with directions Disney should move?

Marky_198 wrote: Because they are able to make the cgi backgrounds look wonderful and painterly, only the human characters look horrible and rubber-ish.
A plasticky look and strange movements.
If they could mix this wonderful backgrounds with painted characters (like the new Rapunzel clipart), THAT would be quite something.

So you are still driven by this opinion of yours? Anyway, you are actually wrong about the movements. They are just as excellent as we are familiar with from older Disney classics. CGI has come a long way in the past years. The idea about drawn character with CGI background has been used before, and will also be seen in The Priness and the Frog. Using it in Rapunzel is a bad idea, as the characters need to match be background. It seems for me that you wish to remove CGI characters completely, but that's never gonna happen. It's like saying color movies would have been a lot better if they were made in black and white. And how would you otherwise create all the details and complexity that goes hand in hand with computer animated characters? If you do that by hand, the whole process would take forever. But again, why not wait till the first clip is released?

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:Have you ever seen the clip? This clip and all the CGI images and other test clip, were not just "tiny images". They were shown at a big screen at SIGGRAPH, and as far as I can remember, everybody became impressed.
It is actually impossible to tell the difference between what is painted and what is a frame from the movie.

But they are tiny clips and images. Because that's what we got. We're just assuming crowds were wowed an begging for more because Jim Hill and other websites say so. If it was so fantastic, why was it abandoned?

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:I get the impression you are so negative because you just can't or wont see the meaning of the achievements. Those working in the business would have told you otherwise.

Those working in the business were probaply still baffled over how it was possible there was still no working story reel or animatic after 6 years. Yes, Keane started work on this after Treasure Planet wrapped up.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:Your personal opinions about the painting style is irrelevant here. Either way, they are of course not going to imitate the style in eveyr single way.

yeah, but guess what. I mentioned that it was my personal opinion that I found rococo ugly. The troubles that come up when you use it as a source of inspiration, especially compared to Hopper, are merely an observation.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:And I'm sorry, but I really don't understand what you mean with "It's the one fairytale that hasn't been adapted by Disney".

Rapunzel is the last of the original, most famous, European "princess" fairytales. You know, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, Cinderella, Beauty and the Beast. Rapunzel is quite famous. If more princess fairytales are to be adapted in the future, it won't be ones audiences are familair with before Disney's adaptation.

Rumpelstiltskin wrote:That's pure speculations. Maybe one of them will make more money than the other, but each movie stands on its own. How much money The Princess and the Frog makes will probably have some influence on future handdrawn movies from Disney, but I don't believe in some kind of competition between them. And since when did the "expect critics" decide in with directions Disney should move?

Fact is, they're not both going to make $151,324,523 at the Box Office and they're not both going to have a Rotten Tomatoes score of 84%. If they bring us two fairytales, one CGI and one handdrawn, they can expect people to be divided over wich they prefer. And if Rapunzel turns out to be the better movie for example, they could be sabotaging their own plans to resurrect traditional animation. And if Frog turns out the better movie, or a bigger moneymaker, CGI at Disney could see its end. And of course critics don't have a say, but they're loud and annoying and they're the ones that decide way too many things anyway. They're sheep that flock together trying to figure out what Indie flick takes the 5th Best Picture slot this year. Releasing these two movies a year apart could be opening up a can of worms for Disney. I know Lasseter looks at each film individually, but management doesn't. And we know there's only so much power he has. *cough*Cars 2*cough*

PatrickvD wrote:But they are tiny clips and images. Because that's what we got. We're just assuming crowds were wowed an begging for more because Jim Hill and other websites say so. If it was so fantastic, why was it abandoned?

Abandoned? Why do you think it was abandoned?

I mean, at least, we don't have any proof, or even any word, that the animation style and look was abandoned. The only thing we know was abandoned was, I guess, the story, but not really, it was just re-worked a lot.

Oh, and why don't you think the films should be released more seperately, because they are looked at as seperate films by Disney, and they want them to be looked at differently by audiences. And of course, they are different. One classic, traditional, faithful telling of the original tale in a combination of traditional and CGI animation, the other a traditionally animated but updated new-set rendition of a tale.

PatrickvD wrote:But they are tiny clips and images. Because that's what we got. We're just assuming crowds were wowed an begging for more because Jim Hill and other websites say so. If it was so fantastic, why was it abandoned?

Like it has already been mentioned, who says it was ever abandoned? Just because they changed the story, it doesn't mean the technology they have evolved was left behind. Trust me, it has been used in Bolt, and it will be used again in Rapunzel.
And yes, Jim Hill and Ain't It Cool News and all the others present at SIGGERAPH could just be lying their guts out, even if I don't see why they should do such a thing. Personally, I think the enthusiasm was real.
About the clips and frames; so far all the clips, images and frames I have seen on the computer has been exactly how I have seen it in the theatre later when the movies have been released. I seriously doubt some magic changes take place somewhere in between. If anything, it looks even better on the big screen. A clip on youtube filmed with a mobile phone is not the same as the real thing (the sharp images from the same clip released later show them how they should have been seen), but it was enough (at least for me) to see that this was a major improvement in computer animation. Any animation expert would tell the same.

PatrickvD wrote:Those working in the business were probaply still baffled over how it was possible there was still no working story reel or animatic after 6 years. Yes, Keane started work on this after Treasure Planet wrapped up.

I was talking about the animation and the visual impression of the film, not the story and the length of the pre-production. And like I said, the work started in 2003, since Keane was not interested in doing the movie unless the computer could do what he wanted it to do. So the first "real thing" they did after the ballerina test, was the Ariel sequence in Mickey's Philharmagic, released in October 2003. In 2005, the world could as we know see the first tests of what the team had achieved. Story or not, you can't make a movie if the required tools are not available without making them first, and that takes some time.
(If you are building a house, and it burns down a some point before it is finished, you will have to start all over again. Just as the Rapunzel story would start all over in 2006.)

PatrickvD wrote:Fact is, they're not both going to make $151,324,523 at the Box Office and they're not both going to have a Rotten Tomatoes score of 84%. If they bring us two fairytales, one CGI and one handdrawn, they can expect people to be divided over wich they prefer. And if Rapunzel turns out to be the better movie for example, they could be sabotaging their own plans to resurrect traditional animation. And if Frog turns out the better movie, or a bigger moneymaker, CGI at Disney could see its end.

If one of the movies becomes much more popular than the other, it doesn't autmatically mean it has to do with what kind of animation it was based on. Both of them could be handdrawn (or CGI), and according to your logic, they would still compete with each others. If The Princess and the Frog become that most popular, does it mean people these days prefer main characters that are black. Or if Rapunzel makes more money, that they instead prefer white characters?
No matter what, I think it will be a cold day you-know-where when Disney decide to completely turn their back on CGI. Considering how much money Pixar, Blue Sky Studios and DreamWorks makes on their movies, Disney will continue to make their own contributions, as well as a more traditional animated feature now and then. You have a freedom with handdawn movies that you don't have with CGI, and vice versa. So why not explore them both?

And about the princess fairy tales. It is true that Sleeping Beauty, Rapunzel, and Beauty and the Beast seems very familiar, even if not all of them are actually princesses. Yet I'm not so sure about Cinderalla and Snow White. They are very well known today, but how was their status before Disney turned them into animated features? I'm pretty convinced that there are still some stories collected by for instance Brothers Grimm or Asbjørnsen and Moe (and H.C. Andersen, despite the fact he wrote the stories himself instead of collecting them from the ) even out there with a young female as the main character, that has the potential to become famous Disney princesses as well. It is likely we could find someone outside Europe too, like Russia. It's not over yet.

Yes, Snow White, and definately Cinderella, were well-known before Disney made them.

Walt saw a silent film of Snow White when he was quite young. It was well-known.

Cinderella's the most popular well-known fairy tale in the world, there is at least one version in every country and culture imaginable, and though they say there's a version as early as Anicent Greece, I know there's a version pretty close to the story we know today dating from Ancient Egypt where a slave's slipper was dropped by an eagle at a King's palace, so he went to find the slipper's owner...

And yes, the Perrault pumpkin version was known by America before Walt got to it. Every fairy tale he animated was well-known, that was part of their appeal and why he chose them.

I knew they were not unkown, but did they belong among The Big Ones before Disney adopted them? It is these versions most people are familiar with today.
How many have actually read Pinocchio or the Little Mermaid. I knew there was a fairy tale called The Little Mermaid by H.C. Andersen before the movie, and a statue at the sea in Copenhagen, but not much more than that.

One of the reasons why Disney choosed Snow White was as you say because he saw it at the theatre once when he was a kid. And yet there are many fairy tales that have been made into live action (or animation) decades ago, and is still not (or no longer) that familiar. The one Disney saw doesn't even exist any longer, from what I have heard.
(It was a fascinating time Disney was a little boy in. No TV, radio, almost no theatrical movies where he lived, as good as no comics, literary genres like science fiction, horror and fantasy as we know them today were still very young and relatively rare, no computer or roleplaying games and modern entertainment in general. So it is only logical that small children back then knew about the traditional fairy tales.)

How famous Cinderella was before 1950, I don't know. How famous it would have been today without the movie, compared with X-Box, Playstation, W.I.T.C.H., Twilight and Harry Potter and so on, one can only guess. Like so many other stories, such as Red Little Riding Hood, Mother Hulda, Puss in Boots (and I'm not talking about the newer Shrek version) or Rumpelstiltskin for that matter, it was of course not an unkown story.

I remember I once saw an old Mother Holda movie when I was little. But before anyone makes a famous and more modern film about it, like an animated feature from Disney, how familiar is this fairy tale? Perhaps not unkown, but not one of the big ones, even if it should have the potential to become somwhere in the future for one reason or not.

I don't have any concrete proof, but I think, and it only makes sense, that Walt chose all the stories to animate because they were well-known, they would have popularity.

As far as Cinderella, more movies have been made of that story than any other, only rivaled by Dracula. Many silent film versions were made, I've seen some of them, and Betty Boop was in a cartoon short version of the story before Disney did their feature length one.

I think these tales were at least slightly bigger and more known than some of the other known ones.

Cinderella is a lot older in story than Dracula.

By rivaled I meant, it is possible they are not sure which story has had more films made from it, but it's highly, highly doubtful Dracula has more, since many versions of the Cinderella story are made each year, and I don't mean just a story with an underdog triumphing.

Disney Duster wrote:By rivaled I meant, it is possible they are not sure which story has had more films made from it, but it's highly, highly doubtful Dracula has more, since many versions of the Cinderella story are made each year, and I don't mean just a story with an underdog triumphing.

Oh, movie format alone. I was thinking of general storytelling format.

Hallelujah!

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... board.aspx

seems we will be getting a CG film that looks hand drawn!

I'm so pleased to hear they're going to try and make it fit right alonside Beauty, Mermaid and Aladdin. Since Princess and the Frog has a much more modern visual style.

Either way, I think Rapunzel is going to be a real winner.